SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council). The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.<<<Read More>>>

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

Dear Maine Hunter,

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is embarking on a study to revise its longterm big game management plan. There have been several opportunities for resident input into the process, including a scientific survey and a series of focus groups (residents, hunters, and landowners were randomly selected to participate in each).

However, MDIFW wants to hear from all hunters, and there are two ways you can be involved in the process. The first is through an online “Town Hall” forum allowing hunters to submit comments to the agency and discuss big game management with one another.

*Editor’s Note* -Read it but don’t believe it…at least as presented. There are too many ifs to know how much, if any, that is written here is true and exactly how much isn’t told. More than likely too little is told.

Like it is some great and remarkable phenomenon that these “powerful Americans” met at Seal Island. The G8 met there during the Bush W. regime and that administration bribed the town of St. Simon’s with a community center, costing us tax payers a few, cool millions.

And, let’s not forget about the “Creature from Jekyll Island” which took place right next door to St. Simon’s and Seal Island. The meeting on Jekyll Island was the laying of plans to destroy America – to create the Federal Reserve (private corporation) System, that most people think is a government agency, as they do the Internal Revenue Service. In reality, the result of “The Creature” is the destruction of America. The goal was to make billionaires out of the ruling class, which most Americans are dumb to.

I’m not saying that Apple, Google, the media prostitutes, turncoat Paul Ryan and moron Mitch McConnell aren’t “powerful Americans.” What I am saying is, they don’t make those kinds of decisions. If, and it’s a big IF, the real powers that decide presidential campaigns, don’t want Trump in their way, then those that we are told who were at Seal Island, are following orders. Perhaps they are laying out the plans on how to “get rid of Trump.” They did this for Kennedy and Lincoln, among others.

This may be part of controlled opposition, leading us to believe that these people are meeting to get rid of Trump. If so, then what is really going on?

There is one thing for certain. Whatever you and I do, unless it’s something that hasn’t been done for 240 years, will not matter. It’s smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show – Kabuki Theater. We are screwed, the power brokers are not…until that day when trumpets sound.

This past weekend, the new Kingmakers met off the coast of Georgia. This time the carefully selected group of powerful Americans, assembled by the American Enterprise Institute, included the CEOs of Apple and Google, media titans Arthur Sulzberger and William Kristol, and top political leaders including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The main goal of everyone present was to stop Donald Trump from obtaining the Republican presidential nomination, and the highlight of the meeting was a presentation by Karl Rove on how to achieve that objective. Their purpose is the same: to take power away from “we the people” and to be Kingmakers once again.”

Observer Jeff Stier of National Center for Public Policy Research Says Secretive Conference Has Now Endorsed Policies that Will Lead to More Tobacco Smoking

New York City/Washington, DC – Credentialed media and members of the public were kicked out of the United Nations’ biennial “Conference of the Parties” (COP-6) for the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) tobacco control treaty just concluded in Moscow.

The following is a statement by Jeff Stier, New York City-based head of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division and one of the observers who was prevented by FCTC officials and Russian security personnel from observing the deliberations.

You ejected the public on the first day. On the second day, without a vote, you removed all the journalists – including those with credentials you granted them.

Not only did you remove the public and the media, you removed any credibility the FCTC had. Delegates will have to answer to their governments and the media when they return home.

I sat outside the outer room of your farce of the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) in Moscow and spoke with frustrated international journalists who were kept in the dark about the policy-making discussions. Now that I’m back in the United States, I will share my experience with media and government officials – who believe in transparent government. They will be rightfully outraged.

Your call to tax smokeless tobacco products such as snus as if they were combustible cigarettes will lead to more harm from tobacco. And worst of all, your recommendation to prohibit e-cigarettes will lead to more smoking.

The conference, which received worldwide publicity despite shielding most of its deliberations from the press and public, was held in Moscow.

The FCTC has been ratified by 179 countries and signed, but not ratified, by the United States.

The U.S. government delegation, which usually attends with observer status, did not attend this year because of the economic sanctions against Russia.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Cupertino, CA / Washington DC – The National Center for Public Policy Research is urging Apple shareholders to approve the National Center’s shareholder resolution (Proposal #9 in Apple’s proxy statement) that requests the consumer electronics company disclose its relationship with, and payments to, trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability ahead of shareholder value and fiduciary responsibilities.

“Apple’s shareholders are currently in the dark about the company’s dealings with certain trade associations that have placed a dedication to pie-in-the sky sustainability goals ahead of the best interests of the company’s stakeholders,” said Justin Danhof, Esq., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “That is why we urge all company shareholders to approve the National Center’s shareholder resolution, thereby bringing Apple’s relationships and sustainability programs to light.”

The annual meeting of Apple shareholders will be held this Friday (February 28) in Cupertino, California at the company’s executive offices.

Apple’s full 2014 proxy statement is available here. The National Center’s proposal, “Report on Company Membership and Involvement with Certain Trade Associations and Business Organizations,” appears on page 60.

The National Center submitted the shareholder proposal, in part, because Apple is a member of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), one of the country’s largest trade organizations. RILA is calling on its member companies to undertake expensive capital expenditures, restrict the use of the property they own and lobby local governments for more restrictive, mandatory building codes that would apply to all businesses, not just RILA members.

While RILA remains vague about what is meant by the “root causes of deeply embedded social and environmental challenges,” scratch beneath the surface of the high-minded sounding phrases, and the organization’s political agenda is revealed. The elevation of greenhouse-gas emissions to a place of prominence, for example, puts RILA squarely on the side of alarmists who, in the absence of any compelling data, blame human activities, i.e., the burning of fossil fuels, for climate change… While the standards and practices dictated by ‘sustainable’ trade associations do not have the force of law behind them, their effect on businesses and consumers can be as far-reaching as the most sweeping edicts from Washington regulators.

The National Center’s shareholder proposal asks Apple to disclose its membership in, and payments to, organizations such as RILA. The proposal explains that: “Some trade associations and business organizations have expanded beyond the promotion of traditional business goals and are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This may affect Company profitability and shareholder value. The Company’s involvement and acquiescence in these endeavors lacks transparency, and publicly-available information about the Company’s trade association memberships and related activities is minimal. An annual report to shareholders will help protect shareholder value.”

“Considering Apple’s membership in RILA with its 2013 hiring of President Obama’s former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson and, shareholders have every reason to question whether the company’s leadership team is more invested in creating the best and newest technological breakthrough or combating so-called climate change,” added Danhof. “The fact that Apple is opposing the National Center’s proposal speaks to the latter.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is one of the leading free-market corporate activists groups in America. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. Friday’s Apple meeting will be the National Center’s third attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Here are my thoughts after listening to the FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] and wolf advocates the other night[at Albuquerque, NM hearing]. I know I haven’t been around this year much but rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated. I am still here still paying attention and still have not been wrong yet.

Wolf advocates want 3 separate populations of Mexican wolves in the newly defined recovery area that will be expanded after this comment period. They also want the animals reclassified to “essential”, which would effectively mean full ESA [Endangered Species Act] status and NO take. They [wolf advocates] are arguing for massive expansion of the northern boundary beyond I-40, and above the Grand Canyon, into Utah and Colorado, in the hopes that their consolation prize will be all of AZ and NM and expanded essential populations there. It’s the old bait and switch.

Keep in mind this strategy is due to the fact that Utah and Colorado will fuss and fight tooth and nail to keep any new program out of their area and end up, by default, supporting those advocacy efforts to just keep them down here; the same way people inside and outside the current boundary [areas] end up fighting each other rather than consolidating and dealing with the real problem. This is deliberate manipulation of our positions and pitting us against each other and we seem to succumb to it every time with our NIMBY attitudes allowing the agencies and extremists to get further and further by default. NIMBY will not work at this point due to what I will outline below.

Currently, FWS are claiming that under the new rule, they will only want to do direct releases into the current BRWRA and they only want an additional 25 wolves for the entire recovery area and will magnanimously only allow natural dispersal into the entire recovery area which will change soon to Mexico border to I-40 and Eastern NM to Western AZ.

I hope everyone will realize how important the history of this program is when I say, last time they changed their minds about releases and more wolves on the ground was a year or so into implementation of the 1998 rule. Then, they simply did a backdoor supplemental EA [environmental assessment or environmental impact statement] and identified areas for releases directly in NM. I implore you, do not for one minute think that a year or so after the new rule implementation, or maybe even immediately after re-listing, depending on what criteria they choose for this wolf, that there will not be a supplemental EA identifying the potential for more wolves in AZ and NM and sites that meet their criteria, exactly as they did back then. These will be located throughout the recovery area, Mexico border to I-40, and eastern NM to western AZ.

Here is more of my reasoning, historically based. It is not normal to have a big captive breeding program. Several years ago FWS were desperately scrambling for more room in the zoos and other cooperator breeders, like Turners and California wolf center. They even talked of euthanizing wolves if necessary since they were breeding so many and could not do further releases in AZ and NM. (They now have been maintaining over 300 genetically redundant wolves in the breeding program deliberately bred so there will be excess wolves ready for release. This has been going on for the past 5 -7 years) Don’t believe me? I was there when those meetings took place and even Jamie Rappaport Clark agrees with me. http://www.defendersblog.org/2013/03/mexican-gray-wolves-15th-anniversary/

These excess captive wolves ready for release right now, do not include the wolves used as breeders that are not genetically redundant (the real captive breeding population which they also maintain). On a side note, there will never, ever be a scientifically valid, extinction in the wild because all those wild wolves are genetically redundant. Only the loss of those used as breeders can render the population as extinct. Using the extinction argument is simply a media ploy, thinly veiled, to gain sympathy for the animal and support for the perceived absolute necessity of the expansion.

Now the discussion should be around genetics. A self-sustaining wolf population is not 125 animals, it is the legal requirement and it is closer to those numbers raised by almost every wolf advocate involved. Depending on what will occur during delisting and re-listing of the Mexican wolf and how they will choose to relist it, there are several scenarios. None of which will come to pass without some kind of genetic rescue. In a nutshell if they are listed as full endangered (essential) rather than “experimental non essential”, as they are now, critical habitat will be identified and land uses will be changed and the potential exists for people to be forced off the land and other economic businesses will be curtailed in whatever areas are deemed suitable habitat. (are we getting a clue now where all those northern program biologists will be employed and what they will be doing?)

But if they stay “experimental non essential” those genetically redundant animals will still need genetic rescue due to serious inbreeding repression. It may even be legal to pursue that by allowing northern gray wolves to be part of the breeding program or to just allow bisecting populations from the northern end of the Mexican wolf recovery area and southern ends of the gray wolf area. Paper on genetic rescue and the Mexican wolf. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609180

Just some thoughts I am having after listening to all the pseudoscience at the hearing the other night, and reading through documents available. Any further ideas anyone else gleaned from the presentation comments or federal register? I am trying to organize my thoughts and once again come up with what I think are strategies to deal with our lack of organization on the issue.

ALL MEMBERS! WE NEED YOUR INPUT ON BOTH OF THESE! Do Not disregard this email. Each and everyone of you is needed. Get your spouses, your kids, your neighbors EVERYONE to do comments!

Okay, I know this will be confusing and you may get frustrated, but hang in there, you can do it! I’m going to try and explain this as plain as I can, if you still don’t understand when I’m done. Don’t give up, call, email, ask for help! Please realize we need EVERYONE to comment on these two rulings. It will affect each and every one of you sooner or later, even if you are not in the expansion area. Wolves don’t understand boundaries and if they do travel into your area and you are NOT in the expansion area (under the 10j rule, see definition below), you have very limited tools to use to address the problems they will cause on your operations! Plus see second map and you will see what the Environmentalist want in the future!

Open up the document [I made this into a downloadable PDF] and it will give you a step by step approach to commenting on these proposals!

If you have any questions or need help. Please feel free to call me or email me! If you want me to read over them, send them to me! I’ll be glad to do it. I would appreciate you sending me a copy of what you comment for later references. We anticipate this ending up in court. It always does, we need all the documentation of our members we can get!

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation vowed to step up efforts with state agencies in addressing access, hunting heritage, and habitat challenges at a recent national elk summit held at RMEF headquarters.

The summit included directors or assistant directors representing Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Kansas officials also submitted a written status of elk in their state. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and RMEF also had representatives present.

“The summit provided a sense of solidarity as state and federal agencies work together to ensure the future of elk and elk country,” said Blake Henning, RMEF vice president and Lands and Conservation. “More importantly, it gave all parties the opportunity to directly communicate with each other and target specific efforts and initiatives that need to take place to make that happen.”

RMEF committed to support state agencies regarding four main challenges: habitat loss, forest management and fragmentation; increasing outreach addressing hunting issues as well as marketing hunting opportunities; providing better access to public and private lands; and continued financial support toward and backing of state and federal wildlife legislative efforts.

Each state also provided an overview on issues related to elk management including population status, hunter success and challenges, fiscal issues, tag sales, marketing needs, habitat and land protection needs, and hunter recruitment.

“There is tremendous value in learning about specific challenges and projects in which the states and others are involved—from the possibility of expanding opportunities to hunt elk in Alaska’s interior to a legislative approach to encourage hunting instead of sharpshooters in national parks to elk restoration efforts in Missouri,” added Henning.

RMEF President and CEO David Allen also addressed the summit. He spoke about elk and predator management, public access and fiscal issues. He also stressed the importance of a cooperative effort between all the agencies and RMEF saying, “Our entire wildlife system hinges on the success of the state agencies. We are your partner and we view you as a partner.”

The three-day conference took place April 29-May 1. Several agency representatives commented on the value of the meeting and the need to hold such summits on a regular basis in the future.

Below is a list of upcoming informational meetings to be held in Central Maine for those interested. I got this info from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website. Please take not of the topics to be discussed, the times and places and attend if you can and/or are interested.